A question for those who want more gun control

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Since I haven't suggested that I want to further limit the right of law abiding citizens, I cannot respond to this question."

Because it fails as a straw man fallacy.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Given history, why should anyone believe that those who want to further limit the right to arms for the law abiding will cease their efforts to do so with universal background checks?

Since I haven't suggested that I want to further limit the right of law abiding citizens, I cannot respond to this question.

I can and will ask a question of the OP (who will respond with one of the logical fallacies he is known for, and lie about my arguments for Licensing and Registration of Firearms by individual states which choose to pass enabling legislation to do so.

What part of the Constitution provides you with privacy, or prohibits a State from require a Doctor to be licensed, a driver to be licensed, a teacher to have a certificate and a contractor to be licensed? How is that different than requiring an individual who wants to own, possess or have in his or her custody and control a license.

How is registration of a gun any different than the control of poisons and explosives, which require both a license and a record of purchase?

The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed….there is no such point about poisons and explosives…….

And again, you will not answer what purpose licensing gun owners serves, how it will do anything you claim it will do, and dittos for registration.

I have dozens of times explained how and why licensing can be an effective deterrent to the proliferation of guns into the hands of those who should not have them. The only way a license will infringe on a responsible, law abiding, sober and sane gun owner is if they prove to be irresponsible law violators, drunks or drug addicts, or a danger to themselves or others. Each of which would require due process and a decision by a trier of facts.

Are those so afraid of licensing and registration fearful their past will catch up to them and they will not pass a serious background check, or they engage in gun running, or they are a drunk or a drug user, or batter their wife or SO, or are paranoid and fear government by the people?

Responsible gun owners mostly would agree, I believe, that persons such as I described in the paragraph above ought not to legally own a gun; thus, they would not get a license and anyone who provided them with a gun would be a de facto criminal, and thus lose their 2nd A. Right.

 

[ClosedCaption]

If gun laws were bad and do nothing would these people work so hard everyday to get rid of the laws that do nothing?

They do do something…they make it harder and more expensive for people who actually obey them to buy, own and carry a gun. And again, do nothing to stop criminals from getting a gun, or mass shooters.

Because thats not what laws do.

Yes…the gun laws on background checks do that. They make it harder for people who obey the law to get a gun, while doing nothing to stop criminals or mass shooters from getting a gun. I have to wait for a background check and if universal checks go through people will have to pay more just to buy a gun…which is unConstitutional.

All laws make it harder on law abiding citizens. Once again, you want only gun laws to do something laws cannot do

 

[M14 Shooter]

Given history, why should anyone believe that those who want to further limit the right to arms for the law abiding will cease their efforts to do so with universal background checks?

Since I haven't suggested that I want to further limit the right of law abiding citizens, I cannot respond to this question.

This is,. of course, an outright lie -- you seek any number of restrictions on the rights of the law abiding, knowing full well that you cannot provide a sound argument for the necessity of any.

Your (individual and collective) dishonesty is a prime example as to why no one should ever think that anti-gun loons will stop trying to restrict the rights of the law abiding until that right ceases to exist.

 

[M14 Shooter]

"Since I haven't suggested that I want to further limit the right of law abiding citizens, I cannot respond to this question."
Because it fails as a straw man fallacy.

Clayton Lie #1526.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I have dozens of times explained how and why licensing can be an effective deterrent...

Proof of your previous lie.
Well done.

 

[August West]

No response from he target audience.
Gee - I'm shocked.

You shouldn`t be shocked when you ask dumbass questions. Everyone in jail was once a "law abiding" citizen. Next?

 

[M14 Shooter]

No response from he target audience.
Gee - I'm shocked.

You shouldn`t be shocked when you ask dumbass questions.

So... you admit you cannot give a reason for anyone to believe that those who seek to further limit the rights of the law abiding will stop at universal background checks.
Thank you.

 

[August West]

No response from he target audience.
Gee - I'm shocked.

You shouldn`t be shocked when you ask dumbass questions.

So... you admit you cannot give a reason for anyone to believe that those who seek to further limit the rights of the law abiding will stop at universal background checks.
Thank you.

I don`t have much faith in your crystal ball predictions of what`s going to happen. I wonder why you can`t pass a background check? I`m surprised that the NRA`s top lawyer is allowed to play with guns.
http://gawker.com/the-nras-top-attorney-was-convicted-of-murder-in-1964-1612596516

 

[Wry Catcher]

No response from he target audience.
Gee - I'm shocked.

You shouldn`t be shocked when you ask dumbass questions.

So... you admit you cannot give a reason for anyone to believe that those who seek to further limit the rights of the law abiding will stop at universal background checks.
Thank you.

Slippery slope logical fallacy.

 

[M14 Shooter]

No response from he target audience.
Gee - I'm shocked.

You shouldn`t be shocked when you ask dumbass questions.

So... you admit you cannot give a reason for anyone to believe that those who seek to further limit the rights of the law abiding will stop at universal background checks.
Thank you.

I don`t have much faith in your crystal ball predictions of what`s going to happen....

Thank you for your continued demonstration that you cannot give anyone a reason to believe those who seek to further limit the rights of the law abiding will stop at universal background checks.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I have dozens of times explained how and why licensing can be an effective deterrent...

Proof of your previous lie.
Well done.

Post the evidence. If you can't, you are the liar!

 

[Wry Catcher]

No response from he target audience.
Gee - I'm shocked.

You shouldn`t be shocked when you ask dumbass questions.

So... you admit you cannot give a reason for anyone to believe that those who seek to further limit the rights of the law abiding will stop at universal background checks.
Thank you.

I don`t have much faith in your crystal ball predictions of what`s going to happen....

Thank you for your continued demonstration that you cannot give anyone a reason to believe those who seek to further limit the rights of the law abiding will stop at universal background checks.

Slippery slope argument and spam.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I have dozens of times explained how and why licensing can be an effective deterrent...

Proof of your previous lie.
Well done.

Post the evidence. If you can't, you are the liar!

Says he who, in post # 13 said:"Since I haven't suggested that I want to further limit the right of law abiding citizens..." and then, just 6 posts later, advocates for the universal licensure of gun owners.


Thank you for your continued demonstration that you cannot give anyone a reason to believe those who seek to further limit the rights of the law abiding will stop at universal background checks.

 

[dannyboys]

Given history, why should anyone believe that those who want to further limit the right to arms for the law abiding will cease their efforts to do so with universal background checks?

So you dont have a problem with Background checks except to say that something else will happen someday?

Background checks do not stop criminals or mass shooters from getting guns. As long as they only apply to licensed gun dealers I have no problem with the current system as long as it is completely revamped so that the checks are instantaneous, leave no record, and don't cost anything…since gun ownership is a Right.

That's the problem. The Government will keep a record of anyone who buys a gun legally. There's a lot of information the Government can glean from the application.
Anyway. In the real world hundreds of thousands of gun owners buy sell and trade guns every year. No paper work.
That's how our family has had guns for generations. Not a single crime committed using a gun ever.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I have dozens of times explained how and why licensing can be an effective deterrent...

Proof of your previous lie.
Well done.

Post the evidence. If you can't, you are the liar!

Says he who, in post # 13 said:"Since I haven't suggested that I want to further limit the right of law abiding citizens..." and then, just 6 posts later, advocates for the universal licensure of gun owners.


Thank you for your continued demonstration that you cannot give anyone a reason to believe those who seek to further limit the rights of the law abiding will stop at universal background checks.

More spam ^^^.

Since you can't and won't obey the rules on this message board, why would anyone believe you obey current gun laws?

Does a license to drive limit the right of law abiding citizens?

 

[M14 Shooter]

I have dozens of times explained how and why licensing can be an effective deterrent...

Proof of your previous lie.
Well done.

Post the evidence. If you can't, you are the liar!

Says he who, in post # 13 said:"Since I haven't suggested that I want to further limit the right of law abiding citizens..." and then, just 6 posts later, advocates for the universal licensure of gun owners.


Thank you for your continued demonstration that you cannot give anyone a reason to believe those who seek to further limit the rights of the law abiding will stop at universal background checks.

More spam ^^^.

I'm sorry you don't like the fact that you get called out on your lies.
if you stopped lying, that wouldn't happen.

And.... I again thank you for your continued demonstration that you cannot give anyone a reason to believe those who seek to further limit the rights of the law abiding will stop at universal background checks

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

If gun laws were bad and do nothing would these people work so hard everyday to get rid of the laws that do nothing?

They do do something…they make it harder and more expensive for people who actually obey them to buy, own and carry a gun. And again, do nothing to stop criminals from getting a gun, or mass shooters.

Because thats not what laws do.

Yes…the gun laws on background checks do that. They make it harder for people who obey the law to get a gun, while doing nothing to stop criminals or mass shooters from getting a gun. I have to wait for a background check and if universal checks go through people will have to pay more just to buy a gun…which is unConstitutional.

All laws make it harder on law abiding citizens. Once again, you want only gun laws to do something laws cannot do

Correct.

And something laws were never intended to do.

 

[Dan Daly]

Given history, why should anyone believe that those who want to further limit the right to arms for the law abiding will cease their efforts to do so with universal background checks?

So you dont have a problem with Background checks except to say that something else will happen someday?

Background checks do not stop criminals or mass shooters from getting guns. As long as they only apply to licensed gun dealers I have no problem with the current system as long as it is completely revamped so that the checks are instantaneous, leave no record, and don't cost anything…since gun ownership is a Right.

No law stops anything and thats why you wackos keep making different rules for guns like no one will notice and you're being reasonable. I guess this means since no law stops all of anything then you oppose all laws. Is that right?

Laws are deterrents! There isnt one law that exists that stops all of anything.

Laws are not deterrents...laws are guidelines for conduct. This notion that a law is going to deter a criminal from doing what he/she wants to so is what makes you bleeding heart wussies so laughable. Laws should be basic guidelines for conduct..and then be ENFORCED. Commit a crime, you are sentenced to incarceration for however long it takes for you to again be TRUSTED to walk the streets free with the rights of free men. If you can't be trusted with a firearm, or with our daughters, or with our wallets etc...then YOU STAY IN JAIL. If we let you out and you keep committing crimes...at some point we simply end you.

You've been making more and more laws over the last century or so that were designed to infringe upon the freedom of law-abiding folks so your widdle bleeding heart could feel good about letting criminals roam free among us. How's that been working out? Not so good, apparently, otherwise you wouldn't be screaming for yet more laws....under the insane notion that doing the same thing over and over again might get you a different result, this time.

Less laws...more enforcement of the ones we have. Pretty simple...unless your bleeding heart has taken all the blood from your brain and made you stoopid.

 

[OldLady]

I have dozens of times explained how and why licensing can be an effective deterrent...

Proof of your previous lie.
Well done.

Post the evidence. If you can't, you are the liar!

Says he who, in post # 13 said:"Since I haven't suggested that I want to further limit the right of law abiding citizens..." and then, just 6 posts later, advocates for the universal licensure of gun owners.


Thank you for your continued demonstration that you cannot give anyone a reason to believe those who seek to further limit the rights of the law abiding will stop at universal background checks.

More spam ^^^.

I'm sorry you don't like the fact that you get called out on your lies.
if you stopped lying, that wouldn't happen.

And.... I again thank you for your continued demonstration that you cannot give anyone a reason to believe those who seek to further limit the rights of the law abiding will stop at universal background checks

No one can 'prove' what hasn't happened yet, which is what you're asking. And you're right, by the way; a lot of people want a lot less guns in the closets of Americans, however it can be managed. Outlaw violent shoot-em-up video games and movies as if they were child pornography. Make it illegal to manufacture or sell certain assault rifles in the United States. Violate everyone's right to privacy and hunt out illegally held guns, or buy them off the streets. Any zany shit you can think of, I'm ready for. There are way too many guns in this country, allowing too many folks to grab a gun and kill anyone they want from a safe distance, like the cowards they are. And there are too many people who think that's ultra cool. It's sick. Guns kill. Period. Get rid of 'em.